It's time to wake up!

a reply to: daskakik

I explained why NA happened and how one can overcome it.

Maybe I do have enough evidence but your not understanding my points.

It's so much, I just find it easier to say everything.

Then I would just repeat my same points over and over because I don't specifically know what your not understanding. You said earlier you agree with some of what I'm saying though.

originally posted by: Andy1144
Maybe I do have enough evidence but your not understanding my points.

Maybe you don't have enough evidence despite the fact that I understand you points just fine.

Then I would just repeat my same points over and over because I don't specifically know what your not understanding. You said earlier you agree with some of what I'm saying though.

Are you trolling?

I am not saying that I don't understand, I'm saying that you can't scientifically prove what you claim.

a reply to: daskakik

I am not saying that I don't understand, I'm saying that you can't scientifically prove what you claim.

The self is an illusion. Free will is an illusion. Scientifically proven. The rest is a more philosophical approach then a scientific one.

originally posted by: Andy1144
The self is an illusion. Free will is an illusion. Scientifically proven.

Scientifically proven? No.

The rest is a more philosophical approach then a scientific one.

Still not scientifically proven.

You keep accepting this and arguing about it at the same time.

originally posted by: daskakik

Scientifically proven? No.

Scientifically proven - yes.

There is no one 'in there' doing anything.

originally posted by: Itisnowagain
Scientifically proven - yes.

There is no one 'in there' doing anything.

You need to look up what scientifically proven means.

a reply to: daskakik

Scientifically proven? No.

That's like saying "It's not scientifically proven that god doesn't exist"

Every things is cause and effect, science knows this. It is impossible to have control free from circumstance. It makes no logical sense.

Still not scientifically proven.
You keep accepting this and arguing about it at the same time.

There is a difference between a philosophical discussion and the results of scientific method. Moral philosophy for example is philosophical not a scientific area.

a reply to: daskakik
I know what 'scientifically proven' means.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

This discussion reminds me of a christian women vs dawkins.

www.youtube.com...

She keeps on asking the poor man for the evidence.

originally posted by: Andy1144
That's like saying "It's not scientifically proven that god doesn't exist"

Grasping at straws?

Of course it isn't scientifcally proven that god doesn't exist. You can't prove a negative. That is why the religious person that asks an atheist to prove god doesn't exist is falling into a fallacy.

There is a difference between a philosophical discussion and the results of scientific method. Moral philosophy for example is philosophical not a scientific area.

And it is not proof of anything.

What's the problem with someone pointing out the obvious?

a reply to: Andy1144

You just shot yourself in the foot.

a reply to: daskakik

Science says everything is cause and effect and there can't possibly be anyone separate making choices free from cause. No control, all cause and effect.

a reply to: Andy1144

I see what the problem is. Pseudoscience is not science.

You are taking one scientific idea and stretching it to cover your own idea.

Another example is people who say the soul continues to exist after death because energy can never be destroyed.

I think that does it for me.

a reply to: daskakik

Another example is people who say the soul continues to exist after death because energy can never be destroyed.
I think that does it for me.

Right that is a BS idea and I actually believed that crap a few years ago. But I am not stretching anything. It's so simple, it's all cause and effect, there is no control free from cause or effect. Simple as that.

On the contrary, you don't show any proof that what your accusations of "pseudoscience" to my claims are.

a reply to: Andy1144

I'm sure the "you" from a few years ago was just as convinced as "you" are about this, now.

Oh well.

a reply to: daskakik
If you want proof that there is no one 'In there' doing anything watch this BBC documentary right to the end where the subject is astounded by what has been revealed.
vimeo.com...

a reply to: daskakik

Cause and effect is not science proven and is pseudoscience? You better hit the books pal.

a reply to: Andy1144

The way you are applying it is pseudoscience. You even agreed with the example I gave.

"Energy cannot be created or destroyed" is science as well.

Now I am sure I'm done here. See you around.

a reply to: daskakik

Energy cannot be created or destroyed but I didn't imply therefore we have an immaterial immortal soul. That would be pseudoscience. I don't believe in such wizardry.